Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics/Archive 2

< Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics

Notices

edit
  • There is an ongoing effort by certain stubborn editors to portray Palestinian indigeneity, as a POV, rather than established fact. A summary of the set of arguments for why Palestinians undoubtedly qualify for listing in the Indigenous peoples and other related articles and categories is articulated here: [1]. Those who agree that the criteria for such a designation has been met are encouraged to work on making sure this important fact is represented wherever appropriate. Tiamut 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is drawing a lot of attention there and at WP:AN/I. It has now been referred to the arbitration committee at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. nadav 02:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence collecting has begun at [2]. Please click on this link and visit as a matter of urgency. Having done so, please post any evidence relevant to the case at my advocates page Mark Chovain or at my page.[3]. I have been urged and obligated not to take any part in the business of writing the encyclopaedia until the ArbCom has fully and properly deliberated and arbitrated on this case. PalestineRemembered 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

edit
This sounds like a good idea, but I am not sure if it is a good idea to become cabalish, even though it is clear others do it. It reflects poorly on their character IMHO and I'd rather just do any coordination out in the open. --Abnn 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your word choice seems kind of ironic as Wikipedia says, "The term cabal derives from Kabbalah (a word that has numerous spelling variations), the mystical interpretation of the Hebrew scripture, and originally meant either an occult doctrine or a secret." --DieWeibeRose 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two articles under attack: Nahalin and Talk:Deir el-Balah camp. In each case please read the talk pages before editing. --Zerotalk 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A paragraph discussing Palestinian history in relation to the Canaanites and other Semitic tribes at Palestinian people is being repeatedly deleted. Please read the talk [4], review the history, and contribute as you see fit. Tiamut 14:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rafah, this article lacks sections on demographics, economy, education, recent events(to a fuller extension), and grammar improvement throughout the entire article. User:Al Ameer son
  • Palestinian cuisine, This article is developed to the point where it has passed the stub-class but can use some more meat and references. (When I made it I based almost everything on common knowledge and articles on wikipedia that relate to Palestinian cuisine. I also replaced Arab cuisine in the Palestinians template with this article.) -User:Al Ameer son
  • Hizma, a stub-class article on a Palestinian village near Jerusalem. -- User:Al Ameer son
  • Bethany (Israel), request to changing name into Bethany (Palestine) or Bethany (West Bank) or of course al-Azariya because it is an Arab populated town in the West Bank not Israel. The article is also mixed in with another article that does not really describe the town but its biblical history. -User:Al Ameer son
  • It's not only Bethany; I have noticed that several articles relating to East Jerusalem have an Israel category or stub tag. For instance, I have just edited the tags on Augusta Victoria and Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There is a problem here, since there seem to be tags for Israel and for the PNA, but not for East Jerusalem. Has anybody devised a way to deal with this? RolandR 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So be it, it is claimed by Israel, one can't dispute that that Israeli does claim it, even if you dispute the validity of that claim. Even if you don't put a Palestinian related subcategory on East Jerusalem, it would be useful to separate its articles out from the greater Jerusalem category. You can put on the East Jerusalem category at least Category:Israeli Arabs as well as Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and probably also Category:Disputed territories or something similar which is probably good enough. It is even more disputed that the West Bank and Gaza Strip, thus trying to get a sensible category hierarchy is going to be tough, but start with an uncontentious one so at least you pull together all the related the information into the category. That's always the first step. --Abnn 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you think this is less contentious; surely the status of East Jerusalem is one of the most contentious issues? I certainly wouldn't put a Category:Israeli Arabs tag on East Jerusalem articles. Israel may have annexed the city, but this is not accepted by its residents, who would utterly reject being described as "Israeli Arabs". I see that many of the Golan Heights articles have both Category:Israel and Category:Syria tags, and we may be able to work somnething similar out here. But it seems to me that the problem is there there is no accepted Palestine category, unly one for the PNA. RolandR 17:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we misunderstood each other. I think East Jerusalem is more contentious than the West Bank and Gaza Strip too. I recommend you create the category and group things together first and then worry about the fight over which tags to put on. That is all. Also remember that Category:Israeli Arabs is a subcategory of Category:Palestinians. --Abnn 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that,and started to add the category to relevant articles. Please help in adding this where appropriate. RolandR 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be proper to include them in both the Israel categories and the East Jerusalem/West Bank category. nadav (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nadav1, we can't solve the "ownership" of these disputes on Wikipedia, we can just try to appropriate the specific claims and what not. With regards to the Jayjg disputes, I would recommend that you find sources and add text to the article content about whether or not they are in East Jerusalem. Then, after you have documented what experts think, adding the category should be a no brainer if the expert consensus is that the location/building is in East Jerusalem. I think the current categories on Category:East Jerusalem are roughly appropriate. Categories on categories don't make much different really, thus don't spend too much energy arguing over it. --Abnn 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this category has inherited the controversy surrounding its namesake. nadav (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on it here. There is no rush to putting this category on any contentious articles. --Abnn 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urgent: Jayjg (talk · contribs) is deleting vast amounts of material from the Palestinian people page even though it is sourced that established linkages to ancient Semitic populations. He has also restored an introduction that is not representative of the sources cited, and rearranged the article sections without input from anyone. He claims what he is deleting WP:OR, however, he has also deleted material sourced to Rashid Khalidi's book on Palestinian identity that I inserted to replace incorrect, unsourced claims in another unrelated section. Please review the history for that page and the talk. Note too, that even after removing more than 4,000 bytes of material, claiming they were original research, Avraham (talk · contribs) came by and slapped the article with an original research tag. What is required are editors with a sense of balance, fairness and good understanding of Wiki policies to intervene. Tiamut 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tiamut complained here about the removal of sourced information from the article Palestinian people. Jayjg reverted that complaint. Just suggestion is to be calm and slow. Add the relevant material to other related pages, such as Rashid Khalidi's page since some of it is his research. Also the relation to the Canannite people can be split into an article talking specifically about that subject, because it is contentious. A good solution may be to move toward mediation. It does appear that it has degenerated into a revert war which are to be avoided. Palestinian people is going to be a problematic article, and you need to have inhuman patience to be able to work on it. When you ran into a revert war, take a deep breath and a break and then think about the best way to come back to the article. Revert warring only makes everyone bitter and less likely to see the point of views of others (in essence, revert warring is like digging trenches, it makes people less likely to compromise.) --Abnn 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I deleted a bunch of a-historical original research mostly based on works written by amateurs in the 1920s and 1930s. I've challenged Tiamut to use sources by academic experts, historians and archeologists, written in the past twenty years, but the closest he has come is a slim propaganda tract written by an unknown in the 1970s, and a travel guide. It's a disgrace, really. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is your editing that is a disgrace Jayjg, as is your harassment of me. Tiamut 15:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is disagreeing with your edits "harassing" you? Please don't mischaracterize content disagreements. By the way, I first edited the Palestinian people article in August 2004, years before you joined Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are some paragraphs that don't seem that bad:
"In his book, Palestinian Identity:The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Rashid Khalidi noted how the archaeological strata that denote the history of Palestine - encompassing the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman periods - form part of the identity of the modern-day Palestinian people, as they have come to understand it over the last century.[1]"
"The modern national identity of Palestinians has its roots in nationalist discourses that emerged among peoples of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th and early 20th century, and the demarcation of modern nation-state boundaries that followed WWI, but this identity has never been an exclusive one, with "Arabism, religion, and local loyalties" continuing to play an important role.[2] Although the challenge posed by Zionism played a role in shaping this identity, Rashid Khalidi submits that "it is a serious mistake to suggest that Palestinian identity emerged mainly as a response to Zionism."[2]"
This is the 1997 work by Rashid Khalid entitled "Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness." published by Columbia University Press I was speaking about. --Abnn 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Social construction of identity is not the same as the historical origins of a particular group of people; in fact, there is often little relationship between the two. Jayjg (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of what I added that was deleted by Jayjg. Can you see why I am so angry? He throws the baby out with the bathwater, mischaracterizes my edits as being based solely on dubious sources, and then wonders why I can claim he is vandlizing the article. It's insiduous and it has to stop. Tiamut 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it was all bathwater, and quite dirty at that. Jayjg (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this is what Jayjg deleted, that is why I brought it up. I can "see" why you are so angry, but that doesn't excuse it. Anger works not in your favor, even if you genuinely feel it. Slow and steady and calm is the way to edit contentious Wikipedia articles. Jayjg does seem like he is provoking you. --Abnn 15:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

edit
Everyone knows about Wikipedia, a place to go to get the 'real' scoop. How often do you use Wikipedia to look up subjects you know little about? Now imagine how often other people use Wikipedia to look up subjects related to Israel.
Wikipedia is not an objective resource but rather an online encyclopedia that any one can edit. The result is a website that is in large part is controlled by 'intellectuals' who seek re-write the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These authors have systematically yet subtly rewritten key passages of thousands of Wikipedia entries to portray Israel in a negative light.
You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend! If you are interested in joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented fairly and accurately, please contact director@israelactivism.com for details!

--DieWeibeRose 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean we're going to get invaded by editors who don't care about Wikipedia? hmmm... --Sm8900 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Wikipedians like us are clearly weird cuz we are basically volunteering for this project for free and stick around for a while. But most people are not weird, not consistant, and frankly, couldn't be bothered to learn how to edit and format WP properly. I've noticed that even if someone comes here with a 'POINT' and a one-sided agenda, they soon discover that it is not that easy given the fact that multiple editors are watching articles, and if someone is hopelessly one-sided, then people watch their every move making sure they keep in line. In the end, these people might either leave or stick around, mellow out. We should applaud any initiative to get more editors on WP, there are so many ISR/PAL articles to create and expand. Anyway, it usually improves the quality of our writing too. --Shuki 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very evocative. --Ian Pitchford 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly a COPYVIO. I suggest removing it before a messy 'you've uploaded a...' on your talk page appears. There is no reduction in quality when copying jpegs, and frankly, it is from a Canadian site so American law is not relevant there (my assumption). Couldn't someone replicate the picture and release it for free, or ask the photographer for permission? --Shuki 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Significant population centers section of the West Bank article and the matter of East Jerusalem being a part of the West Bank has become a serious discussion, see Talk:West Bank. I believe we should make two tables of cities, one Palestinian and the other Israeli, not to make a political point as I was accused of doing so by one user but rather to better organize two very different types of cities in the aspects of administration, ethnicity, language, etc.

On another argument in the same discussion, many users including myself agree that East Jerusalem is indeed a part of the West Bank, however another user has reasons to not include EJ in the article. Since the West Bank is a major component in the geography section of this project I think the project should get involved to solve these two issues, Thanks -- Al Ameer son 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article Economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority could use some work. Much more detail is needed, particularly on the witholding of tax revenues and the U.S. banking restrictions. Also it should be updated to keep up with current developments, as it now appears the embargo will be simultaneously eased on the West Bank and tightened in Gaza. If someone has time to track down reports on the humanitarian impact by the World Bank and NGOs that would be useful too. Sanguinalis 02:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get the closing admin to change his mind. So I started a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 22.--Timeshifter 08:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the overall category was endorsed by the closing admin of the deletion review. I think there would be little rational objection to more specific categories based on the 2 subsections of this page: List of East Jerusalem locations. To see a list of the articles that were categorized in the deleted category please go here: Talk:List of East Jerusalem locations. --Timeshifter 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox deletion was overturned. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 22. --Timeshifter 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • June 28 - article Kiryat Gat had been stable for many months with a few paragraphs on the (very interesting) history of it's take-over by Israel, against an international treaty. There are now editors saying a) it is not well referenced enough, b) it is over-detailed and c) wishing to split the article and put this very important recent history somewhere else. See talk here.
  • June 29 User:Itzse keeps adding a discussion of Jordanians defiling Jewish gravesites (including using gravestones to build latrines) on the Mount of Olives to Mount of Olives, but steadfastly refuses to provide a reliable, verifiable source. His only references are to "common knowledge" and several websites that themselves provide no supporting evidence. See Talk:Mount of Olives. I delete it every time I see it, and will keep doing so several times a day until Itzse provides a source that conforms to Wikipedia standards, but I thought perhaps some of you might help me police this.

July 2007

edit
The closing admin wrote: "The result was keep. Redirect or merge are possibilities but should be discussed on the talk page and consensus achieved if this is to happen." --Timeshifter 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PNA flag is the standard symbol in regards to Palestine, used worldwide. It would be very easy to show this in Google Scholar or any other searches and regular usage. Being that this is an Atlas, it is not necessary to denote control of Gaza - the notation about the PNA is merely to point out that PNA maps can (and are) included in the Atlas. It is not a political denotation, as you are attempting. With the flags - the Hamas is an entity of Palestine, but the flag is not standard. Rarelibra 18:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at commons:Talk:Atlas of Palestine.--Timeshifter 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion will continue at the talk page. Rarelibra 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

edit
Discussion is now archived here: [7]. It lists many examples of this still-ongoing POV campaign. --Timeshifter 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

edit
..and also any other templates/userboxes that are in danger of being vandalized --Regards, Huldra 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • September 9. Please have a look at "Islamic Zionism." This article was added on 25 August 2007. --DieWeisseRose 01:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and good job catching that, DieWeisseRose! First: it looks as if the creator of this "masterpiece" has a record of creating articles which have been deleted; see his/her talk page: User talk:Dendoi. The article is based on an interview in Frontpagemag.com....and the term "Islamic Zionism" refers to exactly one person, who Dendoi does not even manage to refer to by the right name (...Dendoi calls him "T. Hamid") ...The Frontpagemag.com article rightly calls him Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi,.....who already has an article on here: Abdul Hadi Palazzi. I will therefor make a redir, (and notify Dendoi). Regards, Huldra 06:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (PS: ..and just as there is an article on Self-hating Jew, perhaps we should have an article on Self-hating Muslim ;-D )[reply]
Self-hating Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan get glowing articles to themselves. The articles and individuals we should be concerned about are Israelis and Jews such as Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and professor of Chemistry at Hebrew University, whose article contains such gems as ""was a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism." PRtalk(New Sig for PalstinRembred)
  • September 11. Tewfik has quietly placed a "deletion"-template on the Leila Farsakh-article....it is not listet on AfD list ..and the article may be deleted if nothing is done within "five days from then is 2007-09-14 08:52."--Regards, Huldra 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Some expert editing from Tiamut (thanks!) -and the article looks immensly better Regards, Huldra 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC) (PS: Farsahk has written an article which is referred to in the "slightly controversial" Israeli Apartheid article...., )[reply]
  • September 11. Please note the continuous editing made to the article on Sabra and Shatila massacre by Tewfik. I have continuously added the fact that the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London followed that of his counterpart (PLO ambassador to London). Please help in making sure the fact remains part of the article as it is crucial to showing the false excuse Israel used to invade Lebanon in 1982.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.95.207.66 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 September 2007
If Tewfik has removed this fact, he is right. It is not directly related at all to the Sabra Shatila massacre or even the 1982 war, having happened 4 years earlier. The section on the runup to the war in the S&S massacre article where this addition is proposed is confused and confusing, as is the one in the 1982 war article, last I checked.John Z 00:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • September 17. I uploaded a complete rewrite of the current article on Israel and the United Nations for evaluation and criticism : Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. My intention is to replace the current article with this one, if I get enough support. Emmanuelm 17:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this page for now to recreate it later and redirect the current Israel and the United Nations page. Emmanuelm 12:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • September 30: I added a quick reference to the article on Aaron Aaronshon to the new book Ronald Florence, Lawrence and Aaronsohn: T. E. Lawrence, Aaron Aaronsohn, and the Seeds of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2007, Viking Adult, ISBN: 978-0670063512. Although Aaronshon is probably correctly noted to be a low priority, there is much from that book that could be added to his profile. Mike M 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

edit
  • October 12: There is -- as always, actually -- a big dispute going on at Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus regarding sources which is being reduced to fights along the lines of "I'll leave your sources in if you leave mine". This is all wrong. The article was split off from 1948 Palestinian exodus to elaborate on the causes of the exodus. Unfortunately, it has rapidly mutated into a collection of wild, unsupported theories from both sides of the spectrum. When I suggested adding factual sources such as the number of people thought to have left due to each specific cause ([8], [9] and [10]), I was informed that this article was about narrative, not about facts [11]. I am not calling for backup in a content dispute, but I thought the project should take a minute to think about what they want the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article to be about -- before it is turned into a complete circus. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.10.2007 14:11

November 2007

edit
  • November 24 I am very proud to announce that a frustrating year of hard work has elevated the article on the highly controversial leader and long lasting leader of the Palestinians Yasser Arafat to Featured Article Status. This is a major accomplishment for the Project since it is of Top-Importance on our ratings. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have started an WP:RfC on the subject here. pedrito - talk - 29.11.2007 08:24

December 2007

edit

January 2009

edit

A land without a people for a people without a land

edit
It occurs to me that my previous posts on this board did not give an accurate view of the situation. So lets just say I would appreciate some help with this article from more knowledgeable editors. annoynmous 08:30, 16 March 2009


Merge Israeli salad into Arabic Salad

edit

It has been suggested that Israeli salad be merged into Arabic salad. It is the same salad and the Israeli salad article even admits that it is known as Arab Salad inside the Israeli state. Please visit the Israeli salad talk page and discuss this proposal.AlHabibi1958 (talk)

"Flag of Gaza"

edit

I'm not sure exactly what is going on here but User:Gaza.overseer has uploaded File:Flag of Gaza.png and File:Flag of palestine 2009.png which are some kind of combination of Palestinian and Turkish flags. Does anybody know what this is? Is it just WP:MADEUP?? <eleland/talkedits> 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is made up; a show of solidarity between the Turkish and Palestinian people during the 2009 Gaza war. I ran into this in the Gaza article a while back and removed them. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This flag was quite often seen in rallies in Turkey during January 2009. Perhaps a move and correction should be made at commons, to clarify that it isn't an official flag. --Soman (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

edit

I was editing this article today, adding refs for the the list of "States that recognize the State of Palestine" (which constitutes the bulk of this article) when it struck me that this article is a POVFORK. There is already a List of diplomatic missions of Palestine article, where this information could be merged. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority is not authorized to represent the Palestinian people in international fora. That remains the job of the Palestine Liberation Organization. (See here:In accordance with the Declaration of Principles, the Palestinian Authority will not have powers and responsibilities int he sphere of foreign relations, which sphere includes the establishment of embassies, consulates, or other types of foreign missions or posts [...]) I am thinking of proposing the article for deletion since its existence in light of these facts is rather nonsensical, but want to get some feedback from others in the project before going ahead. Any takers? Tiamuttalk 12:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that instead of deletion, we could consider a rename to Foreign Relations of the State of Palestine, but much of the material could just as easily go into State of Palestine (where some of it is already duplicated) or List of diplomatic missions of Palestine (where I have merged the info with what was already there). Tiamuttalk 14:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any other thoughts on this before I move for an AfD? Tiamuttalk 03:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Palestine

edit

I don't know if you have all seen this article, but its a very useful format for our Wikiproject to link up to all project-related articles. Its part of WP:WPOOK which is essentially working to create table-of-contents listings for major subjects at Wikipedia. I've been filling it out with what I can and I encourage everyone to add more links. We might also use it as a way of identifying which articles need priority work (those appearing as parents of other sub-cats, e.g. Architecture in Palestine which has sites like Jacir Palace listed below it. For those interested in pitching in, I'm working on the architecture parent article at User:Tiamut/Architecture.) Anyway, I just wanted to bring your attention to it because I've found it fascinating and think it will help us to understand where we are missing coverage in the project. Tiamuttalk 03:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 future articles, on Architectural structures

edit

4 future articles have been started here:

...part of it is (messy) notes I have moved from my user-space. All these structures *strongly* needs their own article (methinks..)(Note that all have pictures from commons!) ....I have moved them into project-space so that anyone can feel free to work on them, Please do! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the architecture article I was working on in my user space to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Architecture of Palestine to encourage others to get involved too and follow the format used by Huldra above. Of course, the above linked articles should be incorporated into this main article which is designed to serve as an overview for the Architecture of Palestine. I won't be able to contribute as much as I usually do in the next couple of months, so I hope others will be inspired to pick up where I have left off for now. Happy editing all. Tiamuttalk 10:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes needed at PRCS

edit

At Palestine Red Crescent Society, an editor is insisting on presenting material is a misleading and POV fashion. Eyes on the article would be appreciated and some help in explaining why the edits are inappropriate. Review the talk page and article history for more information. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 07:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Palestine tag

edit

Breein 1007 has been removing the Palestine tag from several articles, on the specious grounds that '"palestine" controls no territory. therefore, it is false to label anything on a map as "palestine"'. More input on this would be useful. RolandR (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breein1007 is also removing "Palestine" from various articles, such as List of cities by time of continuous habitation‎, Jordan River, and List of twin towns and sister cities in Palestine. He also unilaterally moved and then proposed a move for the latter from its current tile to List of twin towns and sister cities in the Palestinian territories. :See also the Palestine project talk page where related proposals made concurrently by User:Okedem and User:Drork at other articles are also outlined. Feedback on the talk pages of the articles concerned would be appreciated. Tiamuttalk 15:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has also been edit-warring on Matzpen, where he has repeatedly altered the phrase "occupation of the West Bank" to link to Palestinian territories rather than Israeli-occupied territories. I am reluctant to revert him again. On many other articles, he has replaced the word "Palestine" with "Israel". RolandR (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are either oblivious to the context of my Palestine --> Israel category changes, or are purposely leaving it out to misrepresent my edits and make it appear as though they are POV and incorrect as to encourage other editors to inappropriately revert me. I will assume it is the former. Some articles were incorrectly in the "Georgraphy of Palestine" category, which specifically defines itself as the historical region (correctly so). The same articles were incorrectly missing the "Geography of Israel" category. Therefore, I removed the incorrect category and added the correct one. In terms of Matzpen, as I explained to you several times after you blanket reverted me with no valid edit summaries, the text refers to WB+Gaza Strip. The linked article refers to the aforementioned, as well as the Golan Heights. Therefore, it is not the correct article to link to. This is the problem that arises when Wikipedia is riddled with WP:POVFORKS. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is you who are misleading people. The article states that "The organisation grew in the period after the 1967 Six-Day War and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.; this quite obviously calls for a link to Israeli-occupied territories, and to link to Palestinian territories is to misrepresent the context of the statement. In any case, the article is badly worded; the Golan Heights were occupied at the same time, it would apopear to be an oversight that it (and East Jerusalem) are not specifically mentioned, and to use this as an excuse for blatantly POV edit-warring is wikilawyering of the worst kind. I will make appropriate changes to the article. RolandR (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, see, here on Wikipedia we go by something called sources. You are engaging in WP:OR. The source talks about the West Bank and Gaza Strip (ie: Palestinian territories). The link you propose includes the Golan Heights. Therefore, it is inappropriate. The article isn't badly worded; maybe the source is. Whatever the case, we cannot misrepresent the source. And your claim of wikilawyering doesn't make any sense, sorry. As I said before, this whole problem could have been solved if certain editors hadn't created all these WP:POVFORKS. In any case, I suggest you do not continue edit-warring your OR into the article. If you keep reverting me without proper reason, I will be forced to submit a complaint. Your recent ban won't help your case. Breein1007 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli settlement timeline

edit

I just created this spin-off article from Israeli settlement in order to more clearly the chronology of settlement-related events. What do people think? I based the formatting on Timeline_of_the_African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement Factsontheground (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join discussion

edit

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#General_discussion_on_Israeli-occupied_territories.. Please join in. Unomi (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes needed: Umm Khalid and Najd, Gaza

edit

The depopulated 1948-villages of Umm Khalid and Najd, Gaza have been under long-term (but low-level) attacks. (Apparently some people find it hard to stomach that their land is now part of Netanya and Sderot).

Can some more people please place these articles on their "watch-list"? Also; that last piece of vandalism on Umm Khalid I did not catch for ages, as the vandal destroyed a ref, ...which a ref-bot then "fixed"! So please also check "ref-bot"-changes. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arab–Israeli conflict

edit

Some new dispute here, see the talk page. Zerotalk 10:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza

edit

Another unnecessary AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza with failed arguments like WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Official response by Israeli courts against the file suit by Israeli Human rights organisation Gisha

You may also help updating table with Gisha list. If we add 2 lists. No more major update required. Kasaalan (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Portal:Jerusalem

edit

This WikiProject and WikiProject Israel should develop a Portal:Jerusalem. I notice the Arabic Wikipedia and other Wikipedias also have Jerusalem portals, so I think this Wikipedia needs one too. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Palestinian Identity:The Construction of Modern Naional Consciousness. Columbia University Press. 1997. p. 18. ISBN 0231105142.
  2. ^ a b Palestinian Identity:The Construction of Modern Naional Consciousness. Columbia University Press. 1997. p. 19 - 21. ISBN 0231105142.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_Palestine-related_topics/Archive_2&oldid=1136085781"